RE: Hoptoad, new target
December 3, 2011 at 12:00 am
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2011 at 12:05 am by Hoptoad.)
(December 2, 2011 at 12:51 am)popeyespappy Wrote:(December 1, 2011 at 11:57 pm)Hoptoad Wrote:(December 1, 2011 at 10:37 am)popeyespappy Wrote:(November 30, 2011 at 10:52 pm)Hoptoad Wrote: You wanted me to elaborate on what I am, what I mean by a simple Christian. A lot of ideas and concept's have been added to what Christ taught. Like a building that has been decorated with a fancy facade and as more and more decoration is added the building is lost from sight. I just try to see the original building, understand what he was saying.
The story has been embellished over time. With this as a given the question becomes how do you separate fact from fiction?
The main canonical gospels have remained the same other than translation changes since Constantine. As to changes made to the teachings by Constantine, would he have risked alienating his main supporters by producing a book that they knew was altered from what they had risked so much for?
Have they? Many, perhaps even most scholars believe that Mark 16:9-20 are later additions to the text. Later as in post Constantine. That says nothing about the origins of the Canonical Gospel, or whether they are actually what they are claimed to be. Many of those same scholars are proponents of the Two-source hypothesis. This hypothesis basically says that Mark along with another document called Q were used as sources to create Mathew and Luke. Very few Biblical scholars currently believe any of the Canonical Gospels were actually written by the people they are traditionally attributed to. If these things are true then it should cast a dark shadow of doubt as to the validity of what is contained in these documents.
Thank you for the mark 16:9-20, I was not aware of that one. Certainly possible an extra witness to the resurrection. But doesn't affect the teachings.
The mysterious Q, the three gospels as far as I am aware where recorded between the years AD 68 to AD 73, around the time of the destruction of the temple. That or the events leading to that giving credence to a small and I should imagine close religious sect. Luke him self admits at the start of the gospel he didn't witness the events but records them. Where as Matthew clearly refers to himself in the gospel, where he first meets Christ in a pub. Did Matthew crib mark or did all have the mysterious Q a set of the sayings of Christ, somewhat like the disputed Thomas. The existence of which is put around AD 50.
Twenty years after the death of Christ and well within living memory of the people living at that time. James preaching in Jerusalem, a story that the mass of people themselves where a witness to. Don't you think they would have noticed deficiencies in the story as they may themselves have witnessed Christ.
There are more explanations for a resemblance in narrative than they made it all up, if they did why kill them, why not at the time just denounce them as obvious liars.
I look forward to your next post, I am sorry to say after tomorow I will be missing till about friday or saturday
(December 2, 2011 at 2:59 am)ElDinero Wrote:(December 1, 2011 at 11:57 pm)Hoptoad Wrote: I do not come to bring peace but a sword, was not a teaching, it was a warning.
This is going to be difficult to explain, I don't try to prove the existence of God, that is not my remit.
I hold that if God wanted his existence proved he could easily do it himself. I also believe it would be the most dangerous thing that could happen to man, we are not ready. If proof was given man would do as they where told but that is all they would do, we would lose free will, lose the ability to question, or advance on our merits, I don't believe God wants that.
We don't have free will anyway, so that's ok.
You didn't really answer my general question, either. Are you saying you think every word spoken by Christ was righteous? Do you follow every one of his teachings?
You can have some of mine if you like, I have plenty spare.
It was a warning of what was to come and has come. How would a small time preacher know that?
Do I live by all the teachings, no, I am not a preacher, I have not abandoned my family nor will I. I am just an ordinary bloke doing the best he can, living according to a philosophy he has found to work.
(December 2, 2011 at 10:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Sure Hop..you do it yourself.......or else! I don't believe that god gave us any celestial laws, or that he "sits in judgement" either. Course, the biblical position diagrees with me, doesn't it? God did set laws (legislation) and he will cast us into the lake of fire (sentencing). One of those things god set a law against and will punish us for just happens to be thought crime, if we are to trust the word of jesus.
Hell or sheol is cast in to the lake of fire, or so I think I am not up on the apocalypse. But I will tell you something, so far I cannot find any mention of eternal punishment and I have been looking. Perhaps some of you would like to help me out here.
(December 2, 2011 at 2:42 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Did no one comment on his assumption that the theists here would have to be good ones?
We have a couple. Like, I can count on a few fingers. The rest...
I'll reserve judgment on you, Mr. Toad.
We have a Frog, a Toad, and now we just need a Newt.
Because on here I recon you would be really tested, me I am not that good, but I do like to learn acquire knowledge and deepen my understanding. I have found that the best way to do that is to face questioning.
